Earlier this week, Ars Technica's Jon "Hannibal" Stokes published an article which claimed to show the *real* reason why Apple went Intel. In his article, 'Hannibal' says that part of the reason for IBM and Apple's failed business relationship was that Apple tried to pull 'stunts' to get more out of IBM than they were entitled. David K. Every begs to differ.

When I tought over the reasons why Apple went Intel, it occurred to me that Intel had become a victim of its own success. The PC was a commodity item, and prices were going down. Microsoft would not deliver a powerful new OS for at least another year. Intel had no market for new, expensive and powerful computer chips, just Pentiums for cheap Dell boxes.

Then Apple arrived: A company with a good name as an innovator (think USB and the 3.5'' floppy), user who want powerful hardware and are willing to pay for it, an amazing OS and a brisk update cycle. Plus, Apple has prestige, amazing product design in a world of ugly plastic and showmanship - in short, the best people to sell the newest goodies.

Fianlly someone else with some sense. I had USB on my PC well before Apple decided to embrace the specification with the imac or whichever machine they through out there to help make it mainstream. All Apple did is provide a requirement for manufacturers to make more USB devices available by creating a machine with USB as the only option for connecting peripherals. I am thankful to them for doing so, but let's get our facts straight. Intel with the help of others created USB, Apple helped to make it more popular. Apple's creation, Firewire (or IEEE 1394) still hasn't seen much use but it is out there and like USB before Apple, you can get devices for it but why bother, right. . .

I concur. Jon Stokes and some of the other guys are ArsTechnica are some of the few credible people left in the world of "computer journalism". They harken back to the glory days of BYTE, when computer magazines actually had stuff about computers, instead of ZDNet or PC Gamer crap you see today.

Unfortunately, (as seen in John Stokes article) he has not allowed himself to be fully objective and still retains a lot of the PC fanboi-ism that makes technology journalism hard to read when written by amaturs with some spelling, grammar and technical skills.

Accusing John Stokes of being an amateurish PC fanboy? That's rich. He's one of the most technically competent computer writers out there. Moreover, he's written some very excellent stuff on the PowerPC, and has inteviewed IBM people. He's a whole lot better than the supposed "professionals" working the big computer magazines.

I never said that he wasn't technically competent. As a matter of fact, I'd put him in the top 10 (maybe top 5) technically competant journalists on the planet. That doesn't negate that the numerous times when he offers opinion about a topic and demonstrates the afformentioned fanboy persona I referred to.

I find it extremely amusing that, after the initial, sensible caveat that "To pretend that IBM is immune and Apple is arrogant requires complete denial about IBM's corporate culture", the author goes on and on explaining that Apple are immune from "corporate culture", that they are the *good* ones wronged by this insensitive Behemoth named IBM. Really, that's all that happened for the author, many of Hannibal's fine points (like Apple's erratic behaviour: to clone or not to clone? Copeland, BeOS or Next?) aren't even considered, all the less addressed.

Amen. I think the worst move Apple made after bringing 'The Steve' back was to kill the Mac Clone market. Had they left well enough alone, they would have most likely sold more machines running Mac OS, they might not have pissed off Motorola and perhaps the MacPC would be as ubiquitous as the IBM compatible PC.

But one has to wonder, should everyone start using PCs with IBM/Freescale PPC CPUs, what then is going to be the definition of an IBM compatible pc?

Who really knows? When the decision to make clones and Copland were made Steve that was a particular set of Board Members. Who-ever made that propsal to them is irrelevant, they made the final decision. When the clones ceased and NeXT chosen, it was a different Board...

Steve's word was taken by the Board, and approved. Do we know what convinced them? Nope, but we see Apple in a much better situation than it was... that, we can thank Steve for proposing and implementing these changes.

1. Using Intel, takes away one more reason not to use Mac OsX from PC users: "I will only use Mac Os X if it ran on Intel". Now a few vocal minority will say that they will only use Os X, only if it ran on AMD. But most PC users don't use AMD. If that was the case, then Intel would no longer be in business.

2. This is the only chance Apple has to take it to MS- due to the delay in releasing Longhorn.

3. Making PCs may not be worth the hassle (with the shrinking margins and PC users always looking at the price instead of quality) if you can make a nice profit selling Mac Os X at $99/copy. That is where Apple's growth lies-in software and selling to PC users. Apple has tasted success with iPod by targeting PC users and know PC users can probably be swayed to use Mac Os X and its applications. Even if quite a few illegal copies are installed, it is not going to be the end of the world (see how MS makes a profit on Windows) but would only increase the number of users of Mac Os making it an attractive target for developers.

Remember the initial whining and complaining by PC users about iTunes taking too much memory footprint. But once they started using the software and saw how well it worked, the infatuation with memory usage faded away and iTunes music store is on its way to selling half-a-billion songs-most likely due to the willingness of iPod toting PC users to buy legitimate online music.

So it is not that Apple is shunning the desktop market, they might be considering licensing Os X. Jobs did mention something about collaborating in computers also to Sony CEO when he was on stage recently.

My prediction - Apple will never sell the OS separate from it's hardware. This is a fantasy that many continue to have but it will stay just that- a fantasy. You see, it simply won't be allowed by MS and we all know how powerful they are. They could have crushed or bought out Apple long ago if they wanted but they didn't because Apple serves a purpose- to keep the anti-monopolists at bay. Besides, Apple and MS are likely quite friendly behind the scenes. Steve would never do anything to upset Bill. In fact, my other prediction is now that Apple is on Intel, consumers will be forced to get a Mac machine with a licensed copy of Windows running as a virtual machine. This way uncle Bill will still get his cut no matter what hardware you buy; this is simply brilliant - even when you buy a non-windows OS machine you will still pay for windows.

I know quite a few of IBM folks and a few go with Jon, while two others say there is a whole of BS going around within IBM about the Apple split. One goes as far as saying: most of us didn't believe in Apple running towards the dark site, despite a whole lot of rumors going around. Even when the information leaked that Friday, the whole attitude within IBM was still like 'Nah that is not true, we would have known ...'

Personally I think Jon's story has a lot of small things that hold ground, while David's story is probably in general direction the most precise. Look at the situation: Intel doesn't have that much clients that actually make markets. Maybe even one and what happens when that one keeps postponing new products for your platform (X86), while running to your competitor for chips regarding their new consumer product: Xbox360.

I think it's a win for all sides. Intel gets and holds an innovative partner who also has volume products in the consumermarket. Apple gets more technical support (without any doubt), possibly marketing dollars and with luck faster and cooler chips (IBM never made it to 3ghz, but you never know what they come up with).... whatever, chip speed was never reason one for Apple to leave PPC camp, for they would have done it looooong ago. We, customers, get more innovative products and great new Powerbooks.

Um... I don't know how out-of-touch people are here, but none of the Apple-abstainers I know steer away from the platform because it runs on PPC. That just doesn't make any sense at all. That's a tiny niche, if it ever existed at all. Most computer users don't know and don't care what drives their OS. They just want the experience. The switch to Intel delivers fringe benefits to the experience (i.e. better battery life, less heat), but the user interaction doesn't change at all. The box will look the same. The OS will look the same. Face it, people don't avoid buying an OS because of the processor. That's idiotic.

And also, it has been made very clear that Apple will not sell Leopard or any other incarnation of their OS separate from the hardware. That's not how they make money. They would have to vastly expand their development division to support such an incredible array of consumer devices and hardware. That's the genius behind a controlled hardware platform. Joe PC User will have to buy an Apple if he wants to use Leopard.

This is huge for Intel. Why? Intel wants to grow and that means selling new stuff. Microsoft doesn't like to cut out legacy support because it makes the cost of switching to something else lower. Microsoft has been hugely reluctant to all of Intel's future plans including their 64-bit plans where they sided with AMD.

Apple rolls out new architectures quickly while Microsoft is the exact opposite. This gives Intel the chance to show off its latest and greatest.

...in a predictable "it's all about Apple, it's all about Apple" diatribe as the facts pass over his head.

There doesn't need to be any conspiracy or insider spilling the beans since the economics are pretty much on the table for everyone to see: the embedded markets account for most of the volume in the microprocessor sector. Given a choice between pandering to an indecisive, even difficult, customer who potentially jeopardises growth in other markets, or just betting on those markets instead, IBM and Motorola are just going to do what's good for business. Remember that IBM exited the Intel compatible CPU business many years ago, so they're not making CPUs for personal computers just for fun.

Stokes' article is insightful whereas Every's article relies far too much on a belief system that even Steve Jobs isn't adhered to. Indeed, to Jobs it's all "just business" too, and one doesn't need to look much further than that for explanations.

Apple is not a fun company to work with. They are a bunch of a$$holes just like Microsoft.

In fact, IBM was beginning to think of Apple as a nasty little copy of Microsoft. And we all know how much IBM loves Billy and his band of thugs.

Apple did make the right choice for Apple. It is about time Apple is on a mainstream platform, not boutique processors from companies (Motorola, IBM) that do not have what it takes to make mainstream systems.

However, nothing excuses Apple's attitude and behavior. It will be interesting when Apple is fully moved over to the PC platform and gets spanked big time for their crappy attitude towards people. Now that will be good for laughs.

Apple did the right choice now... but it was their fault they had to do it. They sealed that fate when they did blow the chances for PowerPC processors becoming mainstream, when they decided to launch the 1st PowerMacs a decade ago, cause they were losing market share with their 68k platforms. They basically killed the chances for the PReP/CHRP platform to take off. See:

As I remember (I was highly interested in OS/2 back then and I followed that 'soap'), the PowerMac wasn't PReP/CHRP ready, and wouldn't run the intended software. I migh be wrong here, so please do correct me if I am.
So, IBM later decided that it wasn't worth keeping developing mainstream OS/2 for PPC, and dropped the project. And so did Microsoft with Windows NT. So, PReP/CHRP was basically dead.

Conclusion: if Apple had waited and a real PReP/CHRP platform had been launched, we all probably would be running on PPC right now!

I am surprised that MFS (formerly Motorola SPS) manufactured PPCs for Apple after Apple backstabbed them but whisking of the clone market in one single swoop on the re-entry of Steve Jobs back to apple.

At the peak there was Radius, Power Computing, Daystar Digital and UMax(Taiwaneese). Infact they were becoming pretty sizable in numbers.

Further UMax & Power(I am not 100% sure) had a system that ran both MacOS as well as the BeOS (which was the fastest multithreaded OS @ that time).

It should have done far more damage to MFS than u can imagine. I am not surprised that MTRL decided that it would use the POWER expertise to enable its embedded
processor where atleast MFS can decide whether to make money.
I just laugh @ David's painting that Apple was Motorola's victim here. LOL!

IBM Power
Now to IBM Power. IBM uses POWER to battle the high-end
against a onslaught from SPARC and ITANIUM. Further it has gone to Console MPUs as all three consoles XBox, PS3 and GC3 use some derivative of the Power Core. On the process IBM has pioneered the "Cell" chip with partners Toshiba & Sony.

On development of custom chips, the partners/customers of IBM do share the R&D share input etc....
G5 is a subset of the power architecture for Apple.

Isn't Apple responsible for doing the design of the custom-chipset for a closed platform(Mac). Why should IBM do that job for which they would get no business benefits @ all? IBM does a manufacture chipsets for OpenPower, iSeries and pSeries its servers using the POWER5 chips.

So APPL has a propreitery platform but IBM needs to provide the chipset infrastructure?

INTEL
For Intel this is a Win. They have the coveted Apple partnership. A huge word for the WallStreet stockholders as they have conquered the last bastion of
non-Intel desktops.

Further Apple has OS-X which has features that Longhorn can match only in late 2006. Bringing OSX to Intel will
introduce a competition to MS Windows in the Desktop environment.

As Intel is focussed on becoming a chip supplier not just for PCs but platforms for multimedia(Craig Barett's vision), it can xpect Apple to open some markets for it. Apple has enouf rabid fans who salivate @ every poop that is coming out of Apple and willing to buy the upgrade.

Inspite of all this what will Apple be? A small customer(may be prestigious) compared to the HPs, CPQs, Lenovos, GWYs of the world.

Who is more dependent Apple or Intel? Who has to explain to Adobe & other platform software providers for a change in the MPU in the future AAPL/INTL?

So there is clearly 1 winner INTEL. It would have the bragging rights, another desktop OS with usability better than Windows and a company that can start with a clean slate on the latest platform w/o worrying about backward compatibility.
For IBM and MFS it is a good riddance. AMD
If INTEL gets cozy with Apple, then I beleive that HP, Lenovo. GTWY and DELL would be more willing to deal with AMD as they know that Intel has a 100% customer in
Apple and may allocate the best parts to Apple as it does with DELL right now.
So added with the anti-trust suit and JFTC findings and European Raids this will be beneficial to AMD as Dell would not appreciate somebody else being Intel's bitch
;)

I've worked at a company who was a vendor for Intel, and from what I recall, Intel folks were real slave-drivers. They would be all over the company where I was; doing inspections to see if we were up to snuff (not necessarily a bad thing), calling meetings to up-to-the-minute updates on product delivery schedules. They were a pain, but maybe that's why they're so successful.

We all post what we think is going to happen-but nobody can be certain of their beliefs. Remember when the rumors came out that Mac Os would be ported to Intel by Paul Thurrot, everyone ridiculed him.

I think after a while it is best to settle on standard form factors (one series for laptops and the other for desktops) and just replace the innards as time goes on. It is not cost-effective to keep coming up with new form factors every six months. Also not environmentally friendly.

I still feel that Mac Os may be licensed to third parties such as Sony. This would also jive with Jon Hannibal Stokes take that Mac computers would take a back seat in Apples products.

I also think MS is not much of a threat now (TextEdit can open Word documents, Keynote can open PowerPoint and FileMaker can handle Excel). In fact, MS must be having the heebie-jeebies trying to grapple with Mac OS on Intel news.

"""
MS must be having the heebie-jeebies trying to grapple with Mac OS on Intel news.
"""

Microsoft might be shaking, but it's not from fear...

MS can't wait to get its hands on Intel/Apple hardware so they can fudge-up their "unbiased third-party studies" that prove once-and-for-all that Windows is [better,faster,cheaper,whateverer] than Apple, just like they do every other month with Linux. So far, Apple has been pretty safe from these attacks because they could always claim the "you can't compare x86 and PPC" argument. Once they are both running on the exact same computer [cough]not counting the unpublished voo-doo optimizations in Windows, and the minimization of the competitor[/cough], then it will be "fair".

You don't know how right you are.
1. MS is shaking, but with excitement
2. they can't wait to get their hand on the macs but it's to make sure there is a copy of windows on these same machines- Apple will make sure windows will come pre-licensed on the mac as a forced option (ala a virtual machine) but they'll market it in a way that it will look like they are doing us all a big favor. MS will not be denied their cut even on niche products like the mac. The folks at MS are geniuses; no wonder they're the most profitable and sucessful company in the world.

"Remember when the rumors came out that Mac Os would be ported to Intel by Paul Thurrot, everyone ridiculed him"

Thats because at the time there wasn't reason to be thinking in those terms. The reasons he supplied were the same that many PC fanbois are inclinded to spout and that Apple supposedly has to "Thank Same" like all the rest of the x86 PC populace to supposedly be competative... as if they weren't already.

Actually he was saying that Apple would probably switch the iPod processor to Intel, which would add approx. 10 million processors a year more. So Apple would be buying about 13 - 15 million processors/year from Intel. Although not number 1, there is potential that they could be with yet unannounced products, and an increase in marketshare after the switch. I think that was what he was trying to point out.

David K. assumes that Apple machines are going to achieve price equality with PCs designed for Windows, and that it will be possible to switch OSes and therefore make customers more willing to "take the plunge". Neither is going to be true. Apple is going to continue to make their own machines, and they can't compete with the generic Asian PC-builders unless they want to lose money. So Mac machines will continue to cost more.

Apple will never be Intel's #1 desktop customer, not even close. They will have to take what Intel has available; Intel is not going to cater to them. Fortunately for Apple, Apple will do well with the chips that Intel's favored customers at Dell and HP want, so they can live with being a less important customer.

IBM will continue to do well selling their chips for game consoles (which is higher-volume for them than Mac sales).

"David K. assumes that Apple machines are going to achieve price equality with PCs designed for Windows,"

I don't know why that wouldn't be a logical assumption. Assuming Intel were to give chips to Apple at an increase in price over what Apple paid for with IBM then there is no reason to believe that things will change.

Apple already prices their computers in line (sometimes less (sometimes sightly more) with the rest of the PC industry. You (like so many others) get the pricing issue mixed up because Apple has fewer options to customize their PCs as compared with PCs from the rest of the world. As a result, you end up buying more than what you would have otherwise done because thats all that is available.

Macs are not more expensive... though they are less configurable at the initial buying stage. If you equip a PC with the exact (or as close as possible) same components in both hardware software and operating system as that which comes standard on the Mac, the price evens out nicely.

"Actually he was saying that Apple would probably switch the iPod processor to Intel, which would add approx. 10 million processors a year more. So Apple would be buying about 13 - 15 million processors/year from Intel. Although not number 1, there is potential that they could be with yet unannounced products, and an increase in marketshare after the switch. I think that was what he was trying to point out."

only problem with that is that dell and hp also sell millions of servers (read high margin cpus), millions of pocketpcs, switches, printers, etc etc that grow the gap even further. i don't know the breakdown for how many intel chip sets, memory chips, cpus, etc. are in all of those, but intel being as varied as they are, you can assume that there is a lot of intel inside going on.

this move for apple will leave them in the same spot between the rock and....intel will know apple can't switch back and will use that as leverage against them.

its possible, but it is really a pretty wild prediction to claim apple could be intels number customer in 5 yrs time. dell and hp would have to fall into pits of quicksand and apple would have to return to its glory days of the mid 80s to see that happen. possible, but very unlikely. for a "Popular technology journalist" to predict this is disingenuous at best.

But Apple isn't asking for custom CPU designs so your comments about Apple being caught in the middle is meaningless.

Actually, I'm saying theis a bit prematurely because none of us know what chip Apple is going to use... though we do know that Apple is creating a x86 compatible code... which does give us some insight... and thus negates your argument.

""Actually he was saying that Apple would probably switch the iPod processor to Intel, which would add approx. 10 million processors a year more. So Apple would be buying about 13 - 15 million processors/year from Intel"

If Apple switches the iPod processor to Intel, it will be WAY more than 13-15 million processor a year. Apple just sold 6.2 million iPod last quarter alone, and 5.5 million iPods the quarter before that. For 2005, Apple is on track to selling 25+ million iPods.

Mac processors will be 4+ million this year. That's almost 30 million processors 2005 alone, and if Apple keeps growing like they have been doing, they will easily be using 50+ million processors per year in 2-3 years. Heck, some analysts are already estimating 50 million iPod sales per year 3 years out.

This is just to put things in perspective, because people seem to be entirely underestimating just how fast Apple is growing these days.

If you will include iPods in this discussion, then it would only be fair to include the Axim, the Dell Pocket DJ, and their servers. Don't forget to subtract the iPod Shuffles from the numbers you are quoting. Dell sells more than just desktops and laptops, who knows what else the Xscale powers (tv's, projectors, etc.). Besides, the Pentium class chips provide more revenue than the Xscale chips, so Apple may one day have comparable numbers, but Dell will most likely to continue to sell more revenue generating chips. More importantly, there is only a finite number of people who can afford to purchase high dollar MP3 players, so don't expect this growth rate to continue, because it is physically impossible.

#1) Cost
There is no need to apple to invest in G5 development any more. IBM wants a profit, so does Apple.
Apple probably was unable to obtain a 3Ghz G5 because the cost was too high, while a 3Ghz Pentium 4 will cost a fraction. Now multiply that by millions!
result = price difference * millions;

#2) OS X
Apple sees an excellent future for OS X, so why jeopardize this if there is a problem with their CPU suppliers.
result = OS X++;

#3) Software
Apple is investing years in development for the OS, plus there is a collection of great applications like Final Cut Pro, Logic, iLife, etc.
No OS sales means less aplication sales.
result = Software sales * OS X installed base;

#3) Supply
Apple is trying to stabilize their chip supplies. Any problem with the hardware supply affects also their software sales.
result = (software sales + hardware sales) * on stock;

#4) Future
The "just in case" scenario means they are willing to make anything necessary to make OS X survive the future. It's a LOT of work what they did, porting and providing developers with the tools to make this type of transition.
result = OS XI

So what we have is a grossly unsubstantiated article written by an Apple zealot that claims that Intel will cater to the needs of Apple, among other bizarre things. The same Apple zealot that wrote http://www.igeek.com/CellProcessor.pdf five months ago. Take special note of the manner in which Intel's products are all referred to, and the similar five-year IT COULD BE HUGE vibe. Except now it's the Apple/Intel alliance that COULD BE HUGE.

Apple is a comparatively low-volume customer. The biggest asset Intel gains from their partnership is brand association. Apple is a hot brand because of the success of the iPod, and the Mac has the mystique of being thought of as a luxury computer with an exotic and shiny operating system. Intel is getting paid to be associated with the Cool Kids, and to put the final stake into the chest of non-x86 desktop computers. Expecting them to cater to the whims of Apple, though, is just supreme arrogance.

In the last weeks the articles from your site (many of which you were credited with having submitted here no less) have been unsubstantiated flamebait. Have we forgotten the last two QNX submissions, one of which is proudly available at Trollaxor's website?

Did you bother reading what I wrote or have you forgotten what you've asked me (despite your question being a completely-irrelevant leading question).

> The links you provde don't illustrate that point.

You mean other than where they enumerate the performance of the top five world-wide vendors and none of them are Apple? Or the part where they enumerate the performance of the top five U.S. vendors and Apple is fifth? Or more to the point where Apple is a comparatively a low-volume market contrary to what you attempted to contradict with your incorrect and misleading comment?

Why don't you provide evidence.

> Nobody said otherwise.

You're really moving into a position where you have absolutely no credibility with me. Apple's volumes are comparatively small, and won't afford them any special treatment over other vendors.

> retracted accordingly.

You've retracted a single piece of flamebait that anyone with any technical competence wouldn't have published in the first place, and certainly wouldn't have submitted to other sites. My point is that this is more of the same from your site. The fact that you've gone on to refer to Hannibal as biased while supporting a sourceless editorial from an Apple zealot with a much less impressive track record with objectivity just saddens me.

"Did you bother reading what I wrote or have you forgotten what you've asked me"

I asked you what was wroing with the articles and you asked me if I had read them. I said I did and asked... what's youir point.

"You mean other than where they enumerate the performance of the top five world-wide vendors and none of them are Apple?"

From what I saw, the links were demonstrating US sales and did put Apple int he top 5.

"You're really moving into a position where you have absolutely no credibility with me."

I don't care if I have your validation. Why should I?

"Apple's volumes are comparatively small, and won't afford them any special treatment over other vendors."

Again... Apple isn't demanding special treatment from Intel. They needed to from IBM and Moto because Apple were these companies sole desktop CPU supplier. Now with Intel, the potential may not be as large as it was with IBM, but now nobody will question performance because its what most people are using anyways. Instead, they'll be comparing based on features and price... as they should be.

"You've retracted a single piece of flamebait"

I've retracted several pieces after later discovering that they were flaimbait. Each of these were over the top (I'll be the first to admit) but they were not abviously flaimbait to a person who was not familiar with these OSes. I do regret having published them because I need to check facts before publishing. I've admitted to that already. But you are taking a massive leap by saying that I go out of my way to publish flaimebait. That certinly wasn't the case.

"The fact that you've gone on to refer to Hannibal as biased"

And showed examples

"while supporting a sourceless editorial"

DKE's editorial was about putting things into perspective. He didn't state any facts that required sourcing though he did point out examples where Ars made massive leaps.

"from an Apple zealot"

Sigh... whatever.

"with a much less impressive track record"

Ars Technica has a long history of subtle anti Mac bigotry throughout its articles over the years. The fact that you don't recognise this and feel more inclined to point to a few retractions we've had recently tells me more about your biases than anything else.

> I asked you what was wroing with the articles and you asked me if I had read them. I said I did and asked... what's youir point.

No you didn't.

> > What makes you think that he is saying that Intel is catering to Apple other than to give good prices?

Despite that I didn't say anything about him claiming that Intel was catering to Apple at all (least of all outside of volume and exclusivity prices which wouldn't even be catering since Intel makes such arrangements with its partners like any supplier)

"unsubstantiated article written by an Apple zealot that claims that Intel will cater to the needs of Apple"

(You'll notice the tense of my statement)

I responded to you by giving you locations in the article where he suggests possible favorable treatment to Apple without any real basis for expecting it.

> From what I saw, the links were demonstrating US sales and did put Apple int he top 5.

So what you're saying that on top of making up Apple's ranking you didn't bother to read the links I provided before telling me that they didn't show that Apple wasn't fifth in world sales? You know, despite that placement being completely inconsequential to whether Apple is in a position in terms of sales that makes them more than "comparatively low volume" as you claimed.

> I don't care if I have your validation. Why should I?

If you don't care if you have any credibility, then being involved in journalism is a spectacular idea.

> Again... Apple isn't demanding special treatment from Intel.

Who said Apple was demanding special treatment from Intel? Neither you nor I know whether Apple is demanding any favors from Intel. The implication that Apple would receive any favors sans evidence is silly, which was my point.

> They needed to from IBM and Moto because Apple were these companies sole desktop CPU supplier. Now with
> Intel, the potential may not be as large as it was with IBM, but now nobody will question performance
> because its what most people are using anyways.

This is all speculation that has nothing to do with this conversation.

> But you are taking a massive leap by saying that I go out of my way to publish flaimebait. That certinly wasn't the case.

I didn't say that you went out of your way to post flamebait, I said that the links posted here from osViews are frequently flamebait. You may go out of your way to post it to attract traffic to your site, or you may not. I have no idea, and I don't really care either way. That article was just speculative flamebait that had no sources to use to call into question the veracity of the article it criticized.

> And showed examples

I have no interest in debating with you whether noting that iPod sales are rapidly outgrowing Apple's personal computer sales constitutes a long-standing x86 bias. You are obviously biased. The author of the editorial is obviously biased. He has not a single sourced fact, and trails off into all manner of speculation that directly parallels his behavior viz-a-vis IBM/Apple in the article I linked. Despite this you point to the article on your site as superior to the one Hannibal wrote citing his long-standing bias. The point is that you're a hypocrite, and attacking the integrity of someone that has a much more objective track record than his attacker. Provide evidence of where Hannibal is incorrect, not speculation of a zealot.

> DKE's editorial was about putting things into perspective. He didn't state any facts that required sourcing though he did point out examples where Ars made massive leaps.

You're right, he didn't state any actual facts. He also didn't put anything into perspective, because he isn't in a position to. He has no idea what Apple's motives are, and he's provided no source material, interviewed no employees, and done no investigative journalism. About the only real point he has in the entire article is that no sources were cited from Apple's perspective.

> Sigh... whatever.

Oh, I urge everyone to read some of David K. Every's other writing.

> The fact that you don't recognise this and feel more inclined to point to a few retractions we've had
> recently tells me more about your biases than anything else.

Yes, because I've expressed the opinion that your website's track record here is bad, and because I think that an Apple zealot's speculative article sans any sort of actual information fits the normal pattern that I've come to expect from it, I have exposed my terrible ulterior motives. They happen to include desiring a higher standard of journalism.

The only real winners here are ultimately Intel and the consumer, because neither one has anything to lose from this. But Apple will not become Intel's biggest customer, the increased sales of XScale might be nice but at considerably less revenue than the CPU sales to the big players around the world. Apple will not have any more influence over Intel's design than they had with IBM. And just like Dell and all of Intel's other primary customers, Apple will still have to step up and commit to volume purchases if they want to receive any significant rebating, discounts or guaranteed availability, just as IBM was requiring. It's the nature of the business, Intel doesn't want to get caught with excess inventory any more than Apple, Dell, IBM or anyone else wants to (and Apple has been burned on their quarterlies in the past for having stock on the shelf collecting dust, from iMacs and PowerPCs down to iPods...) The advantage is that Intel will likely be more flexible and require less engineering from Apple. Plus, Apple can always do what a lot of OEMs do and just move the processors out the backdoor to the gray market when they need to hit their clip levels.

I also agree that Apple's proven willingness to embrace new technologies will give Intel a chance to stretch it's legs, rather than being hampered by the MS insistence on legacy compatibility. (I personally think Windows today would be a much different, and much better OS if MS had made the choice Apple did with OSX, just cut the cord and start fresh. I'd still use Linux instead, but I do think it would be better than it is now.)

Joe Average computer user isn't going to be any more inclined to run out and buy a Mac now just because it's on Intel. He's had ample opportunity to in the past if he felt like switching for the desktop's sake. Dual-booting? Sure, that might convince some but I'll bet it's more of a benefit to the established Apple market than to potential Wintel customers, saves them the cost of VirtualPC et al. Plus Joe Average computer user isn't going to swallow $149 or $129 or $99 or even $49 OS upgrade every year, on top of the premium he's already paid for his system (and yes, Apple will charge a premium over and above comparable Wintel boxes, they'd be significantly undervaluing their well-established brand if they did otherwise).

Enterprises and businesses? They won't care. If they haven't switched to Apple in the past they won't now. They look at a big picture encompassing manageability / support / training etc., they don't look at dual-booting as a viable benefit. I'm not saying OSX doesn't have anything to offer businesses, but Linux will probably make a bigger dent in the enterprise desktop space than OSX ever will (the flipside being that I would say OSX will make a bigger dent in the home than Linux will in any sort of near future) Boils down to priorities and TCO.

Apple is not looking to "knock out" Microsoft here, that would be a reckless business decision. Apple will continue to find their niche and play strongly there, just working to make sure that MS can't knock them out.

Is MS trembling? No, I doubt it. Are Dell, HP et al.? Don't see why. They might be jealous of Apple's ability to charge a premium for their hardware, but that's about it. I doubt they're envisioning a significant market shift here. If anything, Apple embracing Intel technology may help accelerate new developments (ie. the previously mentioned USB) that could help boost Wintel sales as well once they trickle down, as they always do.

At the end of the day, I see this as nothing more than a business decision made for business reasons, not a glorious attempt to remake the marketplace and become some sort of forever dominant end-all be-all manufacturer. Apple doesn't strike me as being willing to risk profitability and market value in an all-out assault on the PC market and I don't blame them. A BMW wouldn't be a BMW if everyone was driving one, regardless of what the badge says. But hey, I could be wrong.

Apple doesn't want to influence the design of Intel's chips. Apple had the need to with IBM to remain competative, but now that Apple is sided with the chip supplier that already has that going for it... this is not a factor.

I think it all boils down to people not wanting to hear someone diss 'The Steve' or hear anything bad about Apple. Apple may have made a smart move moving to Intel, they may not have, only time will tell but I find it preposterous that Mr. Every asserts that Intel will drop all of their other customers to ensure Apple gets everything it wants. Let's face the facts people, Apple will still be playing second fiddle as I doubt that they will ever require enough volume or give Intel enough money to make them see to Apple's needs over the likes of Dell, HP/Compaq or countless others. And if that is the case, maybe Apple and Intel belong together.

"Macs are not more expensive... though they are less configurable at the initial buying stage. If you equip a PC with the exact (or as close as possible) same components in both hardware software and operating system as that which comes standard on the Mac, the price evens out nicely."

Oh, come on. How many time do we have to hear this BS line from Mac users? Yes, we've seen you creative you guys can be in your price comparisons and how you seem to think that software can take the place of more powerful hardware, but you're the only ones that think that. Powermacs are ok, but iMacs and eMacs are still overpriced despite what you think. Even Tiger doesn't make up for that.

Nobody's suggesting that software take the place of more powerful hardware. Rather, we are demanding a fair comparison based on equality. If you don't think the hardware matches up, find hardware that does. But if you do, make sure that there is software to match that which comes standard on the Mac.

I find it so interesting that you guys are so quick to exclude software from the equation when trying to make a fair pricing comparison.

>"I've read that article, and I certainly didn't notice any bias in there."

rayiner, here's a few examples:

1) He refers to Apple requesting the increased speed that both IBM and Moto promised as a stunt... to suggest that Apple wasn't entitled to it.

2) Though he himself doesn't make the comments quoted in the his article from Grocklaw and Paul DeMone he validates the obviously trollish comments throughout his editorial. In my eyes, thats just as bad.

3) He says, "Mac is no longer the foundation for Apple's future growth." This despite the fact that Macintosh sales of increased repeatedly year over year for several years now. He plays into the false public perception that decreasing marketshare means decreasing sales.

4) he continues this trend when he says, "For the real reason behind the switch, you have to look to the fact that it's the iPod and iTMS—not the Mac—that are now driving Apple's revenues and stock price." As leared both last quarter as well as this one... not only were Mac sales growing, but Mac sales excced the rate of growth of the PC industry.

5) He said, "The cold, hard reality here is that the Mac is Apple's past and the iPod is Apple's future" (Clearly a troll comment and based solely on opinion)

6) he says, "It's a shame that Steve Jobs can't be upfront with his user base about that fact, because, frankly, I think the Mac community would understand." Keep in mind that he made a comment based solely on conjecture and then says Steve should tell the Mac community what he believes because it validates his comments about the Mac supposedly being the past.

He refers to Apple requesting the increased speed that both IBM and Moto promised as a stunt... to suggest that Apple wasn't entitled to it.

Apple isn't "entitled" to anything. IBM bears the bulk of the cost of developing the PPC chips, if Apple wants them speeded up, they need to bear the cost of that somehow. Besides, that wasn't the only "stunt" the poster alluded to. He was referring, in general, to Apple's pushing for a very niche chip design without bearing the cost of developing a niche processor. If you really consider the dynamics of the situation, its hardly like Apple's being petulent or childish in acting like that. It's in Apple's best interest to get really fast processors from IBM for as cheap as possible. It's in IBM's best interest to sell Apple the same old processors at the same prices. One would expect each company to behave the way they did.

Though he himself doesn't make the comments quoted in the his article from Grocklaw and Paul DeMone he validates the obviously trollish comments throughout his editorial. In my eyes, thats just as bad.

The comments he quotes are hardly trollish. Paul DeMone is also an excellent writer, and he posted the first article because his contacts indicated that the conclusions reached within it are accurate.

He says, "Mac is no longer the foundation for Apple's future growth." This despite the fact that Macintosh sales of increased repeatedly year over year for several years now.

That's a perfectly justifiable statement, and not even a controversial one. If you read any of the business magazines, the things that investors are perking up their ears at is not the sales of Macs, but the absolutely huge growth and marketshare of iPods.

He plays into the false public perception that decreasing marketshare means decreasing sales.

It's all about growth. Remember, Apple is a public company, and their only obligation is to their investors. Investors don't like to hear about decreasing marketshare. They don't particularly care about how much money Apple is making now, they're interested in investing in the company that will grow the most during the time they own their shares. Obviously, its the company with the growing marketshare whose revenues will grow the most during any given period. Why are investors interested in Apple now? Mac sales? No! It's because they own a third of the MP3 player market (high-margin, relatively low development cost), and sales are growing very fast.

As leared both last quarter as well as this one... not only were Mac sales growing, but Mac sales excced the rate of growth of the PC industry.

It's good that Mac sales are growing, but investors aren't exactly always on the lookout for marginal growth in mature markets. The desktop computer market is not very interesting to investors these days. It's a very competitive, cut-throat, low-margin market. Why do you think everyone from Dell to HP are branching out into portable electronics? Because that's where the most growth potential is. From the point of view of an investor, its all about growth potential. Even with a couple of quarters of growing Mac sales, it's obvious that's not where the major potential in Apple's future lies.

He said, "The cold, hard reality here is that the Mac is Apple's past and the iPod is Apple's future" (Clearly a troll comment and based solely on opinion)

Yes, its his opinion, but its hardly a troll, and quite reflective of what many other people are thinking.

If a company buys into a product based on its future roadmap but then supplier holds back on fulfilling that roadmap because it knows that the company utilizing the product is in a pinch then I'd say that sucks as I'm sure most would agree. Apple was entitled to that which IBM and Moto promised but wouldn't deliver.

"IBM bears the bulk of the cost of developing the PPC chips, if Apple wants them speeded up, they need to bear the cost of that somehow."

IBM bears the bulk of the cost so that it can receive the bulk of the profits. Apple bought into IBMs technology based on the knowledge that IBM would follow its roadmap. The fact that IBM chose not to follow the roadmap was not a technological reason as they've since said but because they want Apple to pay more for technology that was previous relatively fixed. Is IBM likely to exploit the fact that Apple was locked into a supplier and then demand that development costs be shared? Seems like a likely scenario to me. Apple shouldn't have had to spend more than the required amount to speed up chips that were already part of the normal product road map. IBM bluffed and Apple didn't flinch. Its as simple as that.

"Besides, that wasn't the only "stunt" the poster alluded to. He was referring, in general, to Apple's pushing for a very niche chip design without bearing the cost of developing a niche processor."

The design was already made when Apple and IBM co-developed the scaled down Power 4 (PPC970) everything else was part of a standard road map. You're assuming that their is dramatically increased costs to meet product road maps. Untul there is proof to support that argument, I'm more inclinded to adopt the IBM tried to play its Trump Card and it failed.

"It's in Apple's best interest to get really fast processors from IBM for as cheap as possible. It's in IBM's best interest to sell Apple the same old processors at the same prices. One would expect each company to behave the way they did."

Agreed. I guess that because IBM resorted to actually holding back increased development to achieve that goal, I consider it more than savvy business.

"The comments he quotes are hardly trollish. Paul DeMone is also an excellent writer, and he posted the first article because his contacts indicated that the conclusions reached within it are accurate."

No, he presented theories that jived with commonly held misconceptions about the way Apple does business and presented some evidence to support that theory but only presented enough to support his theory without looking at things from a greater perspective. That goal is what DKE hoped to achieve with this editorial.

>>He says, "Mac is no longer the foundation for Apple's future growth." This despite the fact that Macintosh sales of increased repeatedly year over year for several years now.

"That's a perfectly justifiable statement, and not even a controversial one."

Its not justifiable and is most certainly controversial. Its not justifiable because the numbers simply refute the argument and its controversial because the anti Apple trolls around the internet would love to hear stories that validate their long-standing hope that the Macintosh was a failure because and will go out of business because they didn't license the operating system. As the Macintosh has started to benefit from rapid recent growth, the need to cling to a new "Macintosh will soon be dead" mantra becomes ever-more apparent. Because that argument has grown old to the point where it is now laughable, the only way they can save face is by saying that because the Macintosh isn't growing as fast as the iPod, that it not the Mac is where Apple is focusing their efforts. It doesn't even enter into these people's minds that both can be a priority as long as both are profitable.

"If you read any of the business magazines, the things that investors are perking up their ears at is not the sales of Macs, but the absolutely huge growth and marketshare of iPods."

Oh? I beg to differ. Analysts are hyping the rapid growth of iPods AND Macintosh computers. Here are some examples:

>>He plays into the false public perception that decreasing marketshare means decreasing sales.

>"It's all about growth. Remember, Apple is a public company, and their only obligation is to their investors. Investors don't like to hear about decreasing marketshare."[/i]

The fallacy of the market share statistic is that Apple unit sales could be growing 400% and yet the market share could be cut in half if the PC industry grew by 800%. Its a very misleading statistic because its a figure that doesn't gauge total number of sales likes everyone thinks it does (apparently yourself included) but instead the total number of sales in proportion to the rest of the industry.

All too often people mix up install-base and market share. The only stats that we need to be concerned with are profitability and install base.

"They don't particularly care about how much money Apple is making now, they're interested in investing in the company that will grow the most during the time they own their shares."

This point can't be understated... selling more computers doesn't necessarily mean increased profitability if you had to cut your price more drastically to achieve those sales.

The problem is that people are applying PC sales dynamics to Apple's business model and thats wrong. Apple has high margins not because they're computers are more expensive than PCs... but that they require you to buy more and thus pay more. Typically a comparably equipped PC is actually MORE expensive than a Macintosh. Apple is able to retain the price advantage because they can set a very specific level of components you must buy if you buy a Mac. That point might make buying a Mac less appealing for some thus causing them to buy a PC, but Apple has found this business model to be more fitting and more profitable for their computer business.

"Obviously, its the company with the growing marketshare whose revenues will grow the most during any given period."

Not true. If I sell 50 widgets at a dollar each and you have a business model that allows you to sell similar widgets at $5 each but you can only sell 10 of them, my market share my be bigger than yours but our profitability is the same.

"Why are investors interested in Apple now? Mac sales? No! It's because they own a third of the MP3 player market (high-margin, relatively low development cost), and sales are growing very fast."

Actually the iPod is growing sales while also exposing more people to the Mac which also increases sales. The Macintosh is still more profitable for Apple than the iPod despite its massive market share. The iPod's massive growth may have been the initial catalyst that fueled investor's interest in Apple but these investors are also interested in the fact that Apple computer unit is also very profitable at a time when the rest of the industry (except for Dell) is losing money on computer sales.

"It's good that Mac sales are growing, but investors aren't exactly always on the lookout for marginal growth in mature markets."

"The desktop computer market is not very interesting to investors these days. It's a very competitive, cut-throat, low-margin market."

In the open x86 PC market yes... but Apple has more ways to differentiate itself other than price... which is the reason why the PC marketplace is not a good business to enter into and also why Apple's Macintosh sales are experiencing massive growth as of late.

"Why do you think everyone from Dell to HP are branching out into portable electronics?"

Because you can only lower your prices to differentiate yourself from the competition so much before you cipre yourself out of the market. A company that owns an entire platform has unique advantages that allow it to differentiate itself in ways other than just price.

"From the point of view of an investor, its all about growth potential. Even with a couple of quarters of growing Mac sales, it's obvious that's not where the major potential in Apple's future lies."

With 79 percent year-over-year overall sales and 94 percent year-over-year in standalone retail sales and no signs of slowing down, I think you are under estimating them..

">He said, "The cold, hard reality here is that the Mac is Apple's past and the iPod is Apple's future" (Clearly a troll comment and based solely on opinion)

"Yes, its his opinion, but its hardly a troll, and quite reflective of what many other people are thinking."

It a troll when you consider that Macintosh sales still amount for the majority of Apple's profitability and also because of the fact that the Macintosh has been experiencing a massive growth trend for the last several quarters.

"I find it so interesting that you guys are so quick to exclude software from the equation when trying to make a fair pricing comparison."

And why is that? Because the Mac comes with a lot of software which most people don't need like most of the iLife apps, and then there's the inevitable "OS X has more features than Windows XP Home and can only be compared to Pro". Well most users don't need Pro, wouldn't know what to do with those features. And so basically Apple shoves a bunch of software on you that you probably won't need (or could simply buy if you did need it), and then charges you for it. Oddly enough, Macs still ship with antiquated apps like Appleworks too. On the other hand, the hardware can never be fast or powerful enough, but it can be too slow or underpowered (Mac Mini). Maybe instead of merely finding it interesting, you could consider why that is.

"And why is that? Because the Mac comes with a lot of software which most people don't need like most of the iLife apps"

Whether you need it or not doesn't negate the fact that its included. PCs may be the better value because you have the option to buy less and spend less. That does not make them less expensive when compared to comperably equipped Macs.

"and then there's the inevitable "OS X has more features than Windows XP Home and can only be compared to Pro".

A very valid argument.

"Well most users don't need Pro, wouldn't know what to do with those features."

And yet a fair comparison would still require XP Pro.

"And so basically Apple shoves a bunch of software on you that you probably won't need (or could simply buy if you did need it), and then charges you for it."

Of those people that buy Macs, few of them have opted to not use the increased software and many of the added features.

""And why is that? Because the Mac comes with a lot of software which most people don't need like most of the iLife apps"

Whether you need it or not doesn't negate the fact that its included. PCs may be the better value because you have the option to buy less and spend less. That does not make them less expensive when compared to comperably equipped Macs.

"and then there's the inevitable "OS X has more features than Windows XP Home and can only be compared to Pro".

A very valid argument.

"Well most users don't need Pro, wouldn't know what to do with those features."

And yet a fair comparison would still require XP Pro.

"And so basically Apple shoves a bunch of software on you that you probably won't need (or could simply buy if you did need it), and then charges you for it."

Of those people that buy Macs, few of them have opted to not use the increased software and many of the added features.

media center pcs for HALF the price of a weaker imac. similar software bundles and mce has all the features of pro that an individual needs (no domain stuff):

The Media center PCs have more in some areas and less in others. You're doing what so many before you have done in that you are not making an accurate comparison. If you match a PC to the same specs as come standard in a Mac (in both hardware and software), the Mac will be similarly priced. Sometimes less sometimes slightly more.

This point is exemplified by those that try to compare OEM PCs to an OEM Mac which is still not an accurate comparison because no PC OEM has an exact spec for spec PC to match a Mac. Because the Mac has less options to custom configure, the PC has to be set to match the Macs price specs to do a fair comparison. Anything else is irrelivant.

"Despite that I didn't say anything about him claiming that Intel was catering to Apple at all (least of all outside of volume and exclusivity prices which wouldn't even be catering since Intel makes such arrangements with its partners like any supplier)"

I must have been replying to another comment.

"I responded to you by giving you locations in the article where he suggests possible favorable treatment to Apple without any real basis for expecting it."

But nowhere in the article does he suggest or Imply that Intel will give Apple favorable treatment to Apple except maybe through price because of Increased processor sales. Essentially, for this portion of his article he's mirroring the comments made at Ars.

"So what you're saying that on top of making up Apple's ranking you didn't bother to read the links I provided before telling me that they didn't show that Apple wasn't fifth in world sales?"

No, I'm saying that I read the links and I didn't see that.

"You know, despite that placement being completely inconsequential to whether Apple is in a position in terms of sales that makes them more than "comparatively low volume" as you claimed."

It is consequential if you consider a #5 spot to be a significant enough player to not be labeled low volume.

"If you don't care if you have any credibility"

Of course I care if I have credibility. I asked why should I care what *you* think. You may as well be some wacko shooting off his mouth in a forum to get attention. Until I see otherwise, I have no reason to gain your validation. You questioning my credibility doesn't mean my credibility is in check.

" Who said Apple was demanding special treatment from Intel? Neither you nor I know whether Apple is demanding any favors from Intel. "

It was implied by you saying that because Apple is a small player that they can't get anything special out of Intel. I was responding by saying that Apple has no motivation to request special treatment. As a matter of fact, they have every insentive no that they've decided to make the switch to make sure the processor doesn't lock them into any Intel-specific technologies. Apple learned that lesson the hard way. By opting for Intel processors, Apple can demand that people make their comparisons based on features rather than have them motivated by misconceptions about processor performance.

"The implication that Apple would receive any favors sans evidence is silly, which was my point."

But your point was that Apple wouldn't receive any favors because they're too small to make to worth Intel's business. While that in and of itself is not true, Apple has every reason to make sure that their processors are the same as everyone elses is... and then optimize the hell out of their code, engineer the hell out of their hardware and achieve performance gains in ways that people can't attempt to mitigate by saying that its marketing fluff.

> This is all speculation that has nothing to do with this conversation.

It was, but you're taking things off track now to the point that I've forgotten what I was referring to. And I don't care enough to look back and check.

"I didn't say that you went out of your way to post flamebait. I said that the links posted here from osViews are frequently flamebait."

So if you're not saying I go out of my way to publish flaimbait, you must be saying that OS News only selects the articles of osViews that are flaimbait?

"You may go out of your way to post it to attract traffic to your site, or you may not. I have no idea, and I don't really care either way."

I just told you I didn't.

"That article was just speculative flamebait"

Nothing in his article was speculative. And it certainly wasn't flaimbait. The ars article on the other hand certainly had elements of speculation and as I pointed out in an earlier post, also contained several elements of flaimbait. The article on osViews took Ars's article and removed both in an effort to offer clarity.

"that had no sources to use to call into question the veracity of the article it criticized."

The article didn't require sources. It wasn't speculating anything. Perhaps you should re-read the article.

"I have no interest in debating with you whether noting that iPod sales are rapidly outgrowing Apple's personal computer sales constitutes a long-standing x86 bias."

Thank goodness. Because thats not what I was saying.

"You are obviously biased."

We all have our biases. How we allow them to show themselves in public forums are of what's most important.

"The author of the editorial is obviously biased."

Perhaps, but thankfully, he didn't allow any person bias to be reflected in his editorial.

"He has not a single sourced fact"

And yet his editorial didn't require it.

"and trails off into all manner of speculation that directly parallels his behavior viz-a-vis IBM/Apple in the article I linked."

The Ars article is the one that offers speculation. Not the osViews article.Perhaps you're mixed up

"Despite this you point to the article on your site as superior to the one Hannibal wrote citing his long-standing bias."

Because Ars used a lot of conjecture to illustrate a point while DKE used facts and common sense.

"The point is that you're a hypocrite, and attacking the integrity of someone that has a much more objective track record than his attacker."

You're example in how you're behaving to me helps me understand what you're trying to say.... though untrue.

"Provide evidence of where Hannibal is incorrect, not speculation of a zealot."

I provided examples where Hannibal is being a fanboy. Much of the information he talks about is speculative, so I can't prove it one way or another. The name calling is unnecessary however.

"You're right, he didn't state any actual facts."

I meant to say that he didn't make any bold statements that needed to be backed up with sources.

"He also didn't put anything into perspective"

You're right except for the part where he put things into perspective

"because he isn't in a position to."

You already said that you don't know who DKE is. How would you know?

"He has no idea what Apple's motives are, and he's provided no source material, interviewed no employees, and done no investigative journalism."

What makes you think that he is saying that Intel is catering to Apple other than to give good prices?

Me:

Do you actually read the articles on your site?

"Intel will do for Apple..."

"Apple wants iPods..."

"This is a huge win for Intel..."

You:

yes. What's your point.

Me:

Did you bother reading what I wrote or have you forgotten what you've asked me (despite your question being a completely-irrelevant leading question).

You:

I asked you what was wroing with the articles and you asked me if I had read them. I said I did and asked... what's youir point.

I didn't read any further than this because for the life of me I do not think you are capable of a cogent discussion and I've wasted enough time humoring you. That's twice you have claimed to have said something you didn't. You asked a leading question, I gave you sentences to look at that were just speculative favoritism without any basis, and you've been claiming to have had an entirely different discussion with me than you did. This is twice that you have just flat out stated something completely incorrect about my comments. I'm sure if I felt like trying to read the rest of it, more would follow.

"Its so far out of touch with the realities of what is really happening in the industry that its laughable at best."

Because osViews content is supplied solely by the community, the site can be regarded as a barometer that gauges the overall opinions of the technology-focused community

If osViews content (consistently) appears to be in contrast to your technology viewpoints or that which the greater technology publishing community is producing, this is an indicator that your technology perspectives are not in tune with those of the greater technology community.

Similarly, when osViews content consistently differs from journalist-driven technology news sites, it means that these sites are either feeding off of each other's own hyperbole or are producing company-sponsored content.

its obvious that these goons are trolling here. They're (primarly japail) keeps bringing up to totally non-relivant comments just to get you upset because you happen to produce a high profile site that contradicts his OS biases.

Come on man! At least take the time to write a response that goes deeper than copy/pasting the same shit you had posted on osopinion eons ago!

If osViews content (consistently) appears to be in contrast to your technology viewpoints or that which the greater technology publishing community is producing, this is an indicator that your technology perspectives are not in tune with those of the greater technology community.

Uh so what if my technology viewpoints ARE in line with the greater technology publishing community and I still find that osviews content is ass backwards ?

Similarly, when osViews content consistently differs from journalist-driven technology news sites, it means that these sites are either feeding off of each other's own hyperbole or are producing company-sponsored content.

Ah the 'everyone else is influenced by politics or paid off but us!' speech. I'm sure every backwoods narrow minded group in the history of the world has sung this tune.

Editor: We need some new shocking stories to get more ad-revenue on our site.

Writer: I know, we can look at some current technological even and make all sorts of rediculous claims and predictions based only on publically available information. Thus completely discounting any possible existance of internal corporate/organizational motives or biases.

Editor: I like it! Make sure to throw in some stuff about how the topic of your stories will "kill Linux".

This seems to be hitting the nail more than Hannibals take. Personally I think the switch is a master stroke by Jobs - dual bootable computers that can run BOTH OS X and windows is such a clear, easy-to-understand advantage, Apple will be gaining market share in leaps and bounds.

At last a straight forward, well thought out and sane take on the reasons behind the move rather than the self serving selective approach that Hannibal portrayed in his article. The name Hannibal itself shows that that particular author far prefers the spectacular over the logical approach though granted, it has gained him precisely what he wanted- impact beyond the norm that this rather superior article can expect. I suspect however and equally like his namesake, that though Hannibal's 'big idea' contains a core of sense, overall he will be proved wrong over the long term by it's over ellaboration.

Intel offers more than just CPU for computers. They have so much more to offer in areas that are growing and being driven by Apple (Xscale, WiMax, USB, etc. for future iPods and other consumer electronics devices). So Apple is more of a major customer to Intel than IBM would be.

Apple gave itself real leverage with it's freedom from CPUs. Always a good thing. I don't think Apple will abandon IBM completely. I think they will use IBM products judiciously when it fits Apple's needs.

When you can leave a deal on the table, you've gained true bargaining power. Apple has finally shed itself of the shackles of single-sourced components. It will help to keep Intel, IBM, or anybody else (AMD?) honest.

Jeezus, study the history. Do you remember WHO came knocking on Apple's door in 91-92? Wasn't Apple about to go with MOT's 68060 or the 88000?

So much for the rebel 'alliance'! What a joke.

IBM and MOT have resigned to cash in on the EASY, hugely profitable, teenager market - videogames and cellphones. They'll blame Apple for not pushing enough PPCs - yet it was them who WOULDN'T, uh, 'deliver' what they PROMISED.

This 'alliance' actually ended when MOT balked at the cancelation of the clones. They childishly switched ALL of their corporate PCs to Windows. (Won't eat their own dogfood, huh?) And then we were treated with the 500MHz fiasco.

'Remember', when the PPC had potential?
That opportunity was sqaundered.

Why is this forum full of people so desperate to defend Apple? They got ditched cause they didnt want to invest in their own product.. so now after their endless missinformation about intel CISC chips being inferiour.. they are superior. All happened in a day did it ?

Heres some simple undeniable facts.. Apple dosent sell many computers.. if they did they would have enough money and faith in their own product to put money up front. They dont.. so they didnt..and the history of their lack of investment in their cpus has been noted.

Intel sells many cpus.. so it has lots of money to spend on research and hence with amd has been making the most cost effective efficient fast cpus.

It was inevitable.. it wasnt about Apple or Intel changing focus or anything.. (apart from the fact Apple cares more about its ipod than anything and intel is now a discount pc producer failing to compete with AMD its needs cheaper bulk sellers like Apple to keep profitability up.)

Apple cant expect anyone to make the worlds best cpu without $ up front for design (MS put up big $$ for the xbox 360 cpu.. whats wrong with apples faith in their buisness?)

Intel needs more customers as it redefines itself as a discount seller.. as it has lost its tag of market leader in performance for too long.

Apple's marketshare in 2003 fell to 1.98 percent, according to IDC sales forecasts for 2003 and Apple's public statements about Mac sales. In short, Apple's marketshare has fallen, year-after-year, each year since Steve Jobs took the reins.

According to Gartner, PC vendors will ship 187 million units in 2004, up almost 14% from 2003. Looking at Apple's CPU sales--around 700,000 to 800,000 units a quarter, or just over three million units for the year--Apple won't gain much ground.

Umm..... they won't gain any ground, actually. If these numbers are true, they will continue to lose ground, as the company has done every year since Steve Jobs took over. Given the best-case for Apple (800,000 units a quarter, or 3.2 million units for the year), Apple will sell just 1.7 percent of all computers in 2004, compared to 1.88 percent for 2003. But that's the best case.

PC makers shipped 180.4 million PCs in 2004, assuming you average the figures supplied by Gartner and IDC, respectively. Apple sold 3.29 million Macs. That gave Apple 1.8 percent of the overall PC market at the end of 2004.

In the first quarter of 2004, Apple experienced 43 percent growth, selling 1.046 million Macs. If the company sold that many Macs each quarter this year, and PC sales did not improve at all, Apple would snag just 2.3 percent of the market. Not so good.

OK, let's say Apple's Mac sales actually improve 43 percent for the entire year this year, compared to last year. 3.29 million added to 43 percent of 3.29 million is 4.7 million units. That would give Apple ... 2.6 percent of the market.

I think most people would agree that growing Mac sales at 43 percent for four quarters in a row is likely impossible. And, of course, there's one more problem: PC sales are not going to be stagnant this year. According to IDC, PC sales will grow 9.7 percent in 2005. Gartner says the figure is closer to 9 percent. If we accept the lower number for PC growth, and the higher number for Mac growth, Apple's market share at the end of 2005 will be ... 2.5 percent. In the absolute best case scenario.

As opposed to Every, the webmaster of a "why I love the Macintosh" site called MacKido. No bias there.

Ars Technica has a long history of subtle anti Mac bigotry throughout its articles over the years.

Oh please. I challenge you to find another tech site that takes Apple and the Mac anywhere near as seriously as Ars does.

The fact that you don't recognise this and feel more inclined to point to a few retractions we've had recently tells me more about your biases than anything else.

Ars has a habit of being pretty sarcastic in reaction to silly marketing hyperbole, regardless of the source of it. Getting upset about the Ars' editors treatment of Apple, when it's the same treatment they give to pretty much *everyone*, is certainly revealing of someone's bias.